Whatever happened to the concept that people could hold differing views on political subjects but could still debate their differences in reasoned measured tones? And possibly come to a middle ground that might not totally satisfy either, but at least showed cooperation?
Whatever happened to respecting people of the opposite side's opinions? When did we get so polarized that politicians of both sides are demonized regularly by the supposed newsreporters of the day? When did the partisan pundits win?
To this, I must say that one must be the change they wish to see in the world. You and I don't agree on much politically, but I have always enjoyed hearing your thoughts on subjects, and I've always wanted you to come back to topics you left when they got too hot. It takes two sides to have a reasoned, well-intentioned debate. If you're willing to slip in a quarter on your side, I'll do so on mine.
The bridge between the opposites has become even more skewed in recent years, especially within the past 10-20. The opposite sides are becoming not more closely meshed but rather farther apart. There's times I've wondered if people on one side simply oppose something for nothing more than the fact that the other side supports it.
To this, I must say that one must be the change they wish to see in the world. You and I don't agree on much politically, but I have always enjoyed hearing your thoughts on subjects, and I've always wanted you to come back to topics you left when they got too hot. It takes two sides to have a reasoned, well-intentioned debate. If you're willing to slip in a quarter on your side, I'll do so on mine.
And I have always appreciated the reasoned and measured comments you made to my political rants Freehold DM. I believe as you do that we need all types of voices to make our political system strong. Unfortunately I see a lot of unreasoning hate out there, on both sides of the spectrum.
I may trend Conservative in my Libertarian views, but I have always been ready to assist people and animals in need. That's part of my personal conviction in 'responsibility'. If government isn't the best answer to help those in distress, then we 'The People' have to pick up the slack. People will always fall through the cracks, and will need a hand. That's a basic thing that makes us human is compassion for our fellow man.
I understand where the big-government aid program proponents are coming from, and I respect their wish to help those less fortunate. I just believe that the government wastes more money than it gets to those it is trying to help. I also think that excessive taxation and foreign debt is eventually detrimental to the body politic's health. I worry that in several decades the programs we are setting up will become untenable.
Maybe I should just hope for the Singularity. Things would be easier if we were all digitized ...
Do opposing candidates really debate anymore?
Most of the debates for the last election followed this formula.
Each opponent is asked the same question and allowed to answer in a specified time allowed.
That's it, no rebuttals, no counter questions, no addressing the other people in the debate.
To me that's not a debate it a glorified Q&A session.
The Whig party has re-formed.
Evidently driven by a veterans movement.
I'm actually really intrigued by their platform.
Thought you all would like to know.
The Whig party has re-formed.
Evidently driven by a veterans movement.
I'm actually really intrigued by their platform.
Thought you all would like to know.
Capital Evil Lincoln! Good show talking up the Whigs like that, and you an Evil Republican! Top notch!
|
Whatever happened to the concept that people could hold differing views on political subjects but could still debate their differences in reasoned measured tones? And possibly come to a middle ground that might not totally satisfy either, but at least showed cooperation?
Whatever happened to respecting people of the opposite side's opinions? When did we get so polarized that politicians of both sides are demonized regularly by the supposed newsreporters of the day? When did the partisan pundits win?
"And possibly come to a middle ground that might not totally satisfy either, but at least showed cooperation?"
I have very strong feelings on the 2nd amendment. It boils down to "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?"
In a perfect world everyone would be able to carry whatever, wherever they want. I am realistic enough to know this is not a perfect world.
I am willing to compromise by accepting a background check to purchase a fire arm. The disqualifiers being a felony conviction or a judge determining mental incompetance(ie involuntary commitment) or a dishonerable discharge from the military. You must be 18 years of age to purchase/own.
I am not going to accept a national database, registration or my guns being stored at a gun club. I do not accept fingerprinting as acceptable (thats what they do to criminals...) or a host of other restrictions.
How far should I compromise each time I am approached by the anti gun folks with a new set of "reasonable" restrictions? Eventually I will bargin away all my rights. What am I getting in return at that point?
I guess what I am getting at, with all due respect, is, are there some things that should not be up for negotiation? If so, what?
I guess what I am getting at, with all due respect, is, are there some things that should not be up for negotiation? If so, what?
Why, the line for you is where you draw it Tom. You seem to be a firm 2nd Amendment guy, I am too. I wish the ultra-Libertarian dream of having everyone armed could actually work, but I fear it would be as unworkable as pure Communism. Still, I am sympathetic. An armed populace is an empowered populace, IMO.
Negotiation is how we all deal with each other. Just because someone might feel guns should be more regulated doesn't make them stupid or evil, they just disagree. Argue your points, they'll argue theirs, and maybe, just maybe all sides can come away with a workable solution.
The current trend seems to be that any hint of cooperation makes you a "flip-flopper." Any amount of compromise, on anything, now supposedly means you "have no values." This super-righteous snot means that instead of political parties, we have armed camps with siege mentalities.
The current trend seems to be that any hint of cooperation makes you a "flip-flopper." Any amount of compromise, on anything, now supposedly means you "have no values." This super-righteous snot means that instead of political parties, we have armed camps with siege mentalities.
*sigh* all too true. Politics is compromise, it's how things get done. It's not weak to modify a political stance, it's a sign of strength IMO. Demanding strict ideological purity is what drove me from both parties.
The current trend seems to be that any hint of cooperation makes you a "flip-flopper." Any amount of compromise, on anything, now supposedly means you "have no values." This super-righteous snot means that instead of political parties, we have armed camps with siege mentalities.*sigh* all too true. Politics is compromise, it's how things get done. It's not weak to modify a political stance, it's a sign of strength IMO. Demanding strict ideological purity is what drove me from both parties.
It's starting to have an effect on me too...but only just. I find more common ground with fellow liberals than with those more conservatively minded, but I have no problem taking a fellow lib to task on something I don't agree with, and I have no problem agreeing with someone who is conservative on something. If we are to pull our respective philosophies out of the all-or-nothing tailspin we seem to be in, then it's up to us to do so.
It's starting to have an effect on me too...but only just. I find more common ground with fellow liberals than with those more conservatively minded, but I have no problem taking a fellow lib to task on something I don't agree with, and I have no problem agreeing with someone who is conservative on something. If we are to pull our respective philosophies out of the all-or-nothing tailspin we seem to be in, then it's up to us to do so.
Well, political parties have dissolved before and reformed. Perhaps if enough of us have the fortitude to vote for other parties than the Elephants and Donkeys we can show the uber partisans that the majority is sick of BOTH of their hatemongering.
In order to restore civility to the boards I hereby declare myself High Pony Emperor of the Boards and outlaw all opinions. Please feel free to shower me with gifts and Genuflecting when you see me.
I'll genuflect you a nice Glasgow Kiss, you ruffian.
That is quite enough out of you.
I dunno. I've been voting "not major party" since '88. Haven't seen a noticeable effect...
Well, if a major party could throw up a decent-viewed moderate who could get elected, then I'd certainly vote for them. I'm willing to bend at points as long as my small-government views are represented.
Well, if a major party could throw up a decent-viewed moderate who could get elected, then I'd certainly vote for them.
I was pretty sure McCain was that guy, but then they appointed Palin as his running-mate... and McCain is like 900 years old... and President Palin was so scary a prospect that my hope of a McCain presidency quickly turned to abject terror. Then I started fervently hoping that Obama would pick General Petraeus as his running mate, to give him some vague semblance of realism/credibility. Alas, that failed as well, when he picked Joe "The Suit" Biden. Sometimes you just can't win.
Well, if a major party could throw up a decent-viewed moderate who could get elected, then I'd certainly vote for them.I was pretty sure McCain was that guy, but then they appointed Palin as his running-mate... and McCain is like 900 years old... and President Palin was so scary a prospect that my hope of a McCain presidency quickly turned to abject terror. Then I started fervently hoping that Obama would pick General Petraeus as his running mate, to give him some vague semblance of realism/credibility. Alas, that failed as well, when he picked Joe "The Suit" Biden. Sometimes you just can't win.
Yeah, McCain I liked. Palin didn't really bother me. I was sure that McCain could corral her if she turned out nutty. The VP is the VP, Cheney conspiracies nonwithstanding.
Obama though, well, my thoughts on his resume are well known, I won't belabor them anymore. Like you said Biden's a suit. You don't even hear too much from him anymore. And I do hate a plagarist, that's just a personal thing.
Palin didn't really bother me. I was sure that McCain could corral her if she turned out nutty.
I was worried McCain would have a heart attack 3 months into office, and then no one would be able to corral her...
Palin didn't really bother me. I was sure that McCain could corral her if she turned out nutty.I was worried McCain would have a heart attack 3 months into office, and then no one would be able to corral her...
Well, there is that. But no one can tell when their ticket's gonna be punched. Having Biden a heartbeat away from the presidency is kinda distressing to me.
|
|
I guess what I am getting at, with all due respect, is, are there some things that should not be up for negotiation? If so, what?Why, the line for you is where you draw it Tom. You seem to be a firm 2nd Amendment guy, I am too. I wish the ultra-Libertarian dream of having everyone armed could actually work, but I fear it would be as unworkable as pure Communism. Still, I am sympathetic. An armed populace is an empowered populace, IMO.
Negotiation is how we all deal with each other. Just because someone might feel guns should be more regulated doesn't make them stupid or evil, they just disagree. Argue your points, they'll argue theirs, and maybe, just maybe all sides can come away with a workable solution.
Well, as far as 2A goes, I've been called obsesive. And I don't think I go much further than scratching the surface. Point of view I guess. But my reason for bringing 2A up wasn't so much to express my views as to try and show how hard it can be for some to compromise.
I always considered myself a moderate or centrist in that as long as neither side gained to much, there was a balance, we were all really gonna be ok. Now I feel myself PUSHED towards the right (even though I wanted nothing to do with either extreme) simply for survivals sake. I feel like the left is to far gone on issues like taxation, government giveaways, 2nd amendment, illegal's amnesty and not putting America first (and damn it, this is MY country, I love it and want it to stand tall and proud - not bow to foriegn powers or be apoligised for!) and this is the life raft I am stuck with. I don't like it at all, but we only got two real parties, with the occasional spoiler.
For example, with 2A (cause this is what I know a bit about),Feinstien said when she gets the votes, it'll be "turn them all in Mr and Mrs America" or some such. Sorry, but I can't. I won't. And there are enough others in the house and senate that would REALLY like to do it, but are scared of loosing their cushy jobs. Take away the threat of being voted out before your ready to "retire"......(I know this is simplifying things).
I guess the issues that are most polarizing are the ones that least lend themselves to compromise. And when you or your side loose, then the battle begins to take back what you lost. This is unhealthy in the long term as it breeds animosity.
Perhaps the country has gotten too large or the world too small for all view points to coexist?
How long can you compromise before principle gets in the way of progress? And how much do you have to compromise before the pay-offs replace principle?
I always considered myself a moderate or centrist...
Everyone thinks they're a moderate or centrist. Pelosi thinks she's "moderate."
I was planning on avoiding the politics threads that sprang up here (I go away from the boards for 1 frinxing day...) but on this one some thoughts.
First there is a large "moderate" (whatever that means, depends on where you stand what you personally qualify as moderate, but this is objectively moderate from someone who stands completely outside the discussion (that person wouldn't be me I should note, I do have political and religious/secular/philosophical viewpoints but I'm not going to get into them here)) group in most discussions but the problem is it is a QUIET majority and most of the vocalizing is done by the nutcases on the fringes of both sides because the moderates get nervous about defending their viewpoints from the other sides fringes and thereby alienating the other sides moderates. The media does not help on this front one iota, indeed giving more space to the fringes simply because the people wish to see that and have something to cheer for without thinking about why they cheer.
In some ways a old example could be valuable to examine.
Another point is that there is a great deal of complexity quite often in political, social and religious/philosophical viewpoints amongst more thoughtful individuals (and most, if not all, on the Paizo boards qualify) but the general populace can be very unthinking or unwilling to make consideration of the subtleties of other arguments.
A third point, and this was inspired by David Fryer's What Conservatives Believe thread (and it is well outlined and you did a great job David), is that political ideals are confused with reality. Ideals are wonderfully straightforward, absolute and clear. Reality tends to be far messier, greyer and flexible and people can get a bit too attached in some cases to ideals and become unwilling to see the real world (most Paizonians seem to have a good grasp of not only ideals but also of realities adjusting those ideals) as it is and adjust their thinking to deal with reality. This was possibly a bit rambling but just throwing some things out there.
I always considered myself a moderate or centrist...Everyone thinks they're a moderate or centrist. Pelosi thinks she's "moderate."
...Aaaand she'd be wrong.
I think part of the problem started when reasonable people allowed the pundits to pat them on the hand and say "don't you worry your pretty little head over this, we'll take care of it."
Or maybe it was when the media stopped covering anything beyond the extremes of the two major parties because centrist or modeate views don't make good enough news fodder, so that's all the average person sees of politics anymore.
Or maybe when some, for whatever reason, felt threatened by an opposing view and decided to just state their idea, put their fingers in their ears and shout "lalalalalalala" for five minutes. Repeat until silence.
Or maybe some combination of all of these or more. I have to say I share the OP's frustration with being unable to find those willing to have a bipartisan debate, rather than a shouting match.
I always considered myself a moderate or centrist...Everyone thinks they're a moderate or centrist. Pelosi thinks she's "moderate."
I firmly accept that I am much farther to the right than nearly everyone I know. So there's at least one exception for you. :)
I firmly accept that I am much farther to the right than nearly everyone I know. So there's at least one exception for you. :)
Your honestly with yourself is refreshing.
For example, with 2A (cause this is what I know a bit about),Feinstien said when she gets the votes, it'll be "turn them all in Mr and Mrs America" or some such. Sorry, but I can't. I won't...
Feinstein can dream about a weapon-free America just as Ultra-Libertarians can dream of a world with manditory carry laws. I'll tell you, neither will ever happen. Heck, if they illegalized guns I'd buy a black-market one immediately (or hide mine if I owned one at the time). Like you, I'd feel forced to break the law. And I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. As I mentioned in another thread, Prohibition doesn't work, whether it be cigaretttes, drugs, alcohol, firearms or prostitution. Leaglize them and tax them. (and yes, I'd support taxes on these pasttimes, if for nothing else to get help for those who let addictions to them destroy their lives)
So yeah, Feinstein has to GET the votes first. I doubt she ever will. That's where debate comes in. As long as you can complain to your reps and let them know just how horrible their next election will be if they cross you on this, democracy works.
Feinstein wants no guns in private hands
Gun owners want unregistered unrestricted access
Neither will ever get what they want, but those of us in the middle see that both can get SOME part of what they want. If you start to believe you can't work with the other side, then that's when democracy breaks down.
I admit, I am puzzled by the way the party platforms seem cobbled together from unrelated issues. I'm pro-life. Why should that imply I'm pro-death penalty?
This confuses the hell out of me as well, because (as in the case you mentioned) the stands on those issues often seem mutually contradictory. I've gone back and forth from Republican to Democrat to Independent, depending on who seems most likely to balance the budget and least likely to push Dominionist issues.
I've gone back and forth from Republican to Democrat to Independent, depending on who seems most likely to balance the budget and least likely to push Dominionist issues.
Are you referring to Dominionist as in the Christian theological stance?
|
I admit, I am puzzled by the way the party platforms seem cobbled together from unrelated issues. I'm pro-life. Why should that imply I'm pro-death penalty?This confuses the hell out of me as well, because (as in the case you mentioned) the stands on those issues often seem mutually contradictory. I've gone back and forth from Republican to Democrat to Independent, depending on who seems most likely to balance the budget and least likely to push Dominionist issues.
Chris,
To be honest, they are linked because most of the people who vote for the party have those views. If they consistently vote for people who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, that gradually becomes the policy. It is a strange combination, but so's the reverse (although as the reverse is my position, I can come up with justifications for that one more easily).It's also an American thing as far as I can see. In the UK, abortion is always (so far) a free vote, up to the conscience of the individual MP to vote on. Anyone who tried to make it a party issue here would get torn to shreds.
I admit, I am puzzled by the way the party platforms seem cobbled together from unrelated issues. I'm pro-life. Why should that imply I'm pro-death penalty?
Yeah, that's always puzzled me too. One reason I can't like either mainstream American political party.
Monkey in a nutshell:
Conservative:
- Small government
- Less bureaucrats
- less aid programs
- freedom to own weapons for defense
- tort reform
- Strong military (but as a defensive bulwark, I lean very Isolationist when it comes to foreign interventions)
- pro-laissez faire/anti-union
Liberal:
- Pro-marraige (ANY marraige gay/straight/poly)
- Strong separation of church and state (although I think a few take it a little too far)
- Legalize 'non-victim' crimes
- Pro-choice (I find it disgusting, but I find lots of other things disgusting, and ultimately the aborter lives with the consequences. Also the new 'Plan B' and ru-486 pills will hopefully cut down on the proceedures)
- Anti-Patriot act (Ben F. said best: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.)
Are you referring to Dominionist as in the Christian theological stance?
Yes. I agree with Jefferson and Madison that religion and government are both better the less they are mixed. In my opinion, the government should stick to fiscal policies and defense, and leave the churches to instill Christian virtue in the populace.
When the Democrats were busy spending like drunken sorority girls and thumping their Bibles, I was a registered Republican. When Bush Jr. was spending like a drunken soriority girl and pushing an authoritarian Christian social and legislative agenda, I bit the bullet and registered with the no-good Democrats in protest.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Feinstein wants no guns in private handsGun owners want unregistered unrestricted access
Neither will ever get what they want, but those of us in the middle see that both can get SOME part of what they want. If you start to believe you can't work with the other side, then that's when democracy breaks down.
But some things are inviolate (or should be).
McCain wants limits on speaking of politicians, a compromise would be some restrictions.
That pesky first ammendment would say "What part of 'Shall make NO law' do you idiots not understand?"
Well in an ideal world it would (Still bitter Bush signed it)
Walter Williams just hit it on the head, "Reaching into your own pocket to help your fellow man is commendable. Reaching into someone eles's pocket is contemptable."
But some things are inviolate (or should be).
McCain wants limits on speaking of politicians, a compromise would be some restrictions.
That pesky first ammendment would say "What part of 'Shall make NO law' do you idiots not understand?"
Well in an ideal world it would (Still bitter Bush signed it)
Yeah, that one pissed me off too. McCain's been going off on that for years, one of the biggest reasons a lot of folks in AZ don't care for him, he's simply the lesser evil.
Walter Williams just hit it on the head, "Reaching into your own pocket to help your fellow man is commendable. Reaching into someone eles's pocket is contemptable."
Bingo, nail on the head indeed.
Walter Williams just hit it on the head, "Reaching into your own pocket to help your fellow man is commendable. Reaching into someone eles's pocket is contemptable."
I agree with this statement on its face. I believe that if you are a proponent of small government the responsibility to help those in need falls squarely on your own shoulders.
However, I would be a dreamer as bad as the Communists if I thought that Libertarianism as envisioned by folks like L. Niel Smith could ever come to fruition. Both philosophies ask too much of human nature.
Just as Communism leads down the path of totalitarianism, an Anarcho-Capitalist system would lead to many folks left out in the cold. Why? 'Cause humans are greedy as a rule. I think government should have a [limited] role in [temporarily] assisting people who are in need of it. If I could guarantee that normal Americans would help them without the government stepping in, I'd much rather prefer that, but I don't think it is feasable.
However, when I see the system in place now with SSI, welfare, disability and a host of other safety nets, I see a constellation of bureaucracies that are often gamed by the people they are meant to help. I also have first-hand experience with people who would rather accept a handout and not do anything, even if this means they live in squallor. The government will give you just enough to live on, and for some, this is enough. The problem is that the rules in place encourage these folks to have lots of kids and not get married. The kids get enmeshed in the system early, and usually get prescriptions to a dozen mood adjusters before they hit adolescence. They are brought up to believe the government will take care of them in perpetuity and that they need medications to face the day.
I worry about the debt that these programs are creating. I also worry that we are forging a perpetual underclass that expects the government to supply them with all the means to exist (albeit shabbily). Anyone remember bread and circuses? Rome was not brought down just by the excesses of the Caesars.
I had someone poo pooh the debt with 'well, we'll all be dead when it's an issue anyway.' Well, the same could be said for global warming, no? Why try and fix the pollution if we're all off the stage in 20-50 years or so? After all, everything is fine now, right?
I guess I wish humans could think a little longer term. But, once again that's probably too much to ask of human nature. I guess I'll keep hoping for a technological breakthrough to solve our ills.
|
|
I admit, I am puzzled by the way the party platforms seem cobbled together from unrelated issues. I'm pro-life. Why should that imply I'm pro-death penalty?This confuses the hell out of me as well, because (as in the case you mentioned) the stands on those issues often seem mutually contradictory. I've gone back and forth from Republican to Democrat to Independent, depending on who seems most likely to balance the budget and least likely to push Dominionist issues.Chris,
To be honest, they are linked because most of the people who vote for the party have those views. If they consistently vote for people who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, that gradually becomes the policy. It is a strange combination, but so's the reverse (although as the reverse is my position, I can come up with justifications for that one more easily).
Not really a strange combination when you understand the reasoning. The pro-death penalty, anti-abortion person will tell you that it boils down to this. The aborted infant has done nothing to desrve being killedothr than be concieved. The person on death row has commited a horrific act that society has judged that they should be removed for. They might also argue that the death penalty works as a deterant, although I don't see how that is the case when according to the Department of Justice 95% of death row inmates die of natural causes before the can be executed.
Personally I am pro-choice, although I hope th choice is life, and I am pro-death penalty for the most extreme crimes such as Son of Sam and other serial killers, or for crimes against humanity. At the risk of invoking Godwin, I doubt there were too many protesters when they executed the Nazi leadership.
|
|
I admit, I am puzzled by the way the party platforms seem cobbled together from unrelated issues. I'm pro-life. Why should that imply I'm pro-death penalty?
In part because of the U.S. two party "winner take all" system. The parties must, out of nesecity take a big tent approach to draw in the widest group of voters possible. If we had a more European parlimentary system, you would see much more narrowly defined platforms then exist in th U.S. today.
The aborted infant has done nothing to desrve being killedothr than be concieved. The person on death row has commited a horrific act that society has judged that they should be removed for.
"Deserve has got nothin' to do with it."
--William Munny.|
|
The aborted infant has done nothing to desrve being killedothr than be concieved. The person on death row has commited a horrific act that society has judged that they should be removed for."Deserve has got nothin' to do with it."
--William Munny.
See, I have no problem with abortion if it's the mother's life or the baby's life. I have no problem with it if the baby is the result of rape or incest and having the child would be emotionally scaring. However, I read an editorial in the New York Times a few years back where a woman spoke very opennly, and I give her points for honesty, about the fact that she had an abortion because having a baby would mean giving up her fashionable Mannhattan third story walkup. It is people like that who make me wish that there were more restrictions on abortion.
See, I have no problem with abortion if it's the mother's life or the baby's life. I have no problem with it if the baby is the result of rape or incest and having the child would be emotionally scaring. However, I read an editorial in the New York Times a few years back where a woman spoke very opennly, and I give her points for honesty, about the fact that she had an abortion because having a baby would mean giving up her fashionable Mannhattan third story walkup. It is people like that who make me wish that there were more restrictions on abortion.
I'm Pro-Choice, but that's exactly my position as you've stated. I get annoyed when people try to tell me that it is the equivalent of Pro-Death.
Then I coup-de-grace them. :P
See, I have no problem with abortion if it's the mother's life or the baby's life. I have no problem with it if the baby is the result of rape or incest and having the child would be emotionally scaring. However, I read an editorial in the New York Times a few years back where a woman spoke very opennly, and I give her points for honesty, about the fact that she had an abortion because having a baby would mean giving up her fashionable Mannhattan third story walkup. It is people like that who make me wish that there were more restrictions on abortion.
That woman is ostensibly a "grown-up" and should daggone well know better -- I'd also be perfectly OK with criminal charges for her. But what about some dumb middle-school kid, who attends an abstinance-only school and so has no idea how pregnancy even occurs and has no access to birth control, who gets knocked up at 13? Do you force her to have the kid? Yes, she was irresponsible, but find me a 13-year-old with a high sense of responsibility. Assuming you perform the procedure in the first trimester while the thing is still a blastoid, rather than a baby, I feel that you're destoying a collection of cells in order to allow the mother another chance at a normal life, and her parents as well (who would otherwise doubtless be stuck raising the child themselbes). If she does it again? Well, she should have learned the first time.
|
|
See, I have no problem with abortion if it's the mother's life or the baby's life. I have no problem with it if the baby is the result of rape or incest and having the child would be emotionally scaring. However, I read an editorial in the New York Times a few years back where a woman spoke very opennly, and I give her points for honesty, about the fact that she had an abortion because having a baby would mean giving up her fashionable Mannhattan third story walkup. It is people like that who make me wish that there were more restrictions on abortion.That woman is ostensibly a "grown-up" and should daggone well know better. I'd also be perfectly OK with criminal charges for her. But what about some dumb middle-school kid, who attends an abstinance-only school and so has no idea how pregnancy even occurs and has no access to birth control, who gets knocked up at 13? Do you force her to have the kid? Yes, she was irresponsible, but find me a 13-year-old with a high sense of responsibility.
In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.
In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.
So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!
|
|
Actually, as I said earlier, this is how I define myself.In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!
Personally I am pro-choice, although I hope the choice is life...
I read this somewhere, but I'm not sure where now. "There are two problems with freedom. One is that it is so easily abused. The other is that it is so damn superior to the alternatives."
The thrid is that it lacks a definition. I hear all the time that Eurpoeans "have less freedom" than Americans, but yet they can do things we can't (go topless without becoming registered sex offenders, smoke a joint without going to the slammer), and we can do some things they can't (own an arsenal). Yet we happily claim they're "less free."
|
|
In the scenario you outlined, I would have no problem with abortion being avalible for her, with parental or some other guardian's consent.So you and I agree all the way down the line, point-for-point it seems, and yet you identify as "pro-life," and I identify as "pro-choice." It's amazing what polarizing politics will do for you!
Actually, Kirth, David identified himself as pro-choice but hopes they choose life. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. But both of us also recognise that, ultimately, it's not our decision (unless we're the farther, then I'd expect to have some input).